Nostr Web Client

It really is wild to me that the propaganda has been so strong that people literally think CO2 is bad for the environment. Even people trying to counter the idea, tacitly frame their position in this direction (like but methane is even worse!) to not cause outrage.

CO2 is literally the only reason an environment exists. It is the literal life creator.

It's like demonizing language itself as being "bad for communication."

Matt 2w ago 💬 1

Isn't their point that too much CO2 causes an unhealthy imbalance?

I'm probably on your side in general on this issue, but it's unhelpful to misrepresent the actual arguments. I've never heard anyone argue that 0% CO2 on the planet is the goal or even a good thing. There are a few anti-human nuts who actually do just want us all to die (still wouldn't take us to 0%), but I see that as an extreme minority.

There is a point at which too much CO2 would kill us. You can cover your head with an airtight plastic bag and prove that. The question is whether current levels are as emergent as people claim (I have doubts).

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Guy Swann 2w ago 💬 1

First, the belief is extremely broadly and explicitly accepted that it is "bad" in a total senbse. It is literally trated as a pollutant.

Second, there is no evidence for the latter point. All major animal life breathed oxygen during the cambrian explosion and seemed to survive just fine (or rather thrived to an insane degree) at ~20x the CO2 levels as today. So I don't know where this notion is evidenced exactly

Chris 2w ago 💬 1

Guy. Love your work. Really.

But this topic is SO much more nuanced. Humans and their current habitat couldn’t survive in the same conditions in which the earth has spent 99 percent of it post-Cambrian explosion epochs. It’s called “hot bulb”. And it’s great for reptiles. Devastating for mammals.

Yes. The CO2 “emergency” is a politicised power play, hoax.

But no, we can’t jump to multiples of higher levels of higher CO2 (or oxygen! For that matter) and survive.

We have to move at evolutions scale to meet the organic changes. 🧬

I only answered because I love your work and you seem genuinely confused.

Guy Swann 2w ago

Wel I’m not really saying we could just make a leap to 8,000 ppm and nothing would happen. I’m just saying the idea that it’s a pollutant and destructive to the environment is an absurdity.

One doesn’t really have to take any wildly polar stance to make clear that ridiculous claim is, in fact, ridiculous.

So really I think we are in agreement.